Why does Civ 6 looks like an expansion to Civ 5?

[Genesis_26317]

Seriously this looks like the patch type expansion that they should have had in Civilization 5.

I don't want to sound super negative, but oh man I was really hoping for a return to form with this one.

I miss super long games of playing a civilization simulator, and this looks like another Beyond Earth boondoggle. Is there anyway they are going to make a classic styled Civilization game and do a parallel Civilization Revolution styled series for people who don't want the extreme complexity of the old games?

I'm sop scared this game is going to disappoint and I really don't want it to. I miss playing Civilization as much as I used to.


(btw I am a sad retired man with absolutely no life. I have been playing the series since 1, but I switched to a lot of other games when 5 came out.)


----------------------------------
I should probably re-edit my first post to clarify what I meant.

I meant from what info we have so far was just information about how it is different (as in adding on to) from Civ 5 mostly.

There doesn't seem to be much information about any fully new mechanics aside from the the new way to research techs.


Also the graphics look VERY similar to an art redesign from Civ 5. An example being of how very different 1, 2, 3, and 4 were from each other.


An example being the new district system, Civ 5 already had the ability to control the growth direction of their cities. Compared to the simple system in 1, 2, 3,and 4 you can direct the literally shape of your cities control area. It does look neat on the map, but that system is used already on a lot of Civ 5 similar games (clones) already, Warlock - Master of the Arcane for instance and doesn't seem to be much different than an update to Civ 5.
----------------------------------

 

[m15a]

Seriously this looks like the patch type expansion that they should have had in Civilization 5.

I'm guessing that Civ 6 looks like a Civ 5 expansion to you because you're underestimating the extent of the changes and the amount of work required because the changes aren't ones you want. Or possibly because you haven't seen enough detail about the game to know what the game is yet.

I'm not trolling, but those are certainly possible answers to your (possibly rhetorical) question. Of course it could be that the game was rushed or who knows what else, but I don't think any of us can really judge that at this point.

It does look like the designers tried to improve upon Civ V in the way that Civ IV was an attempt to improve upon Civ III. So maybe the the game isn't for you if you didn't like Civ V. Although maybe the game will fix the things that you really didn't like about Civ V.

 

[Genesis_26317]

I'm guessing that Civ 6 looks like a Civ 5 expansion to you because you're underestimating the extent of the changes and the amount of work required because the changes aren't ones you want. Or possibly because you haven't seen enough detail about the game to know what the game is yet.

I'm not trolling, but those are certainly possible answers to your (possibly rhetorical) question. Of course it could be that the game was rushed or who knows what else, but I don't think any of us can really judge that at this point.

It does look like the designers tried to improve upon Civ V in the way that Civ IV was an attempt to improve upon Civ III. So maybe the the game isn't for you if you didn't like Civ V. Although maybe the game will fix the things that you really didn't like about Civ V.

I should probably re-edit my first post to clarify what I meant.

I meant from what info we have so far was just information about how it is different (as in adding on to) from Civ 5 mostly.

There doesn't seem to be much information about any fully new mechanics aside from the the new way to research techs.


Also the graphics look VERY similar to an art redesign from Civ 5. An example being of how very different 1, 2, 3, and 4 were from each other.


An example being the new district system, Civ 5 already had the ability to control the growth direction of their cities. Compared to the simple system in 1, 2, 3,and 4 you can direct the literally shape of your cities control area. It does look neat on the map, but that system is used already on a lot of Civ 5 similar games (clones) already, Warlock - Master of the Arcane for instance and doesn't seem to be much different than an update to Civ 5.

 

[learner gamer]

@PhilBowles mentioned something very similar in a good post in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567154&page=2

As it happens though, I'm rather hoping that Civ 6 actually is in some ways an expansion to Civ 5. Why? Because I've long believed that Civ 5 was the greatest game never made. That it was a case of close, but no cigar – principally for two reasons:

(a) the implementation of global happiness – which I class as the single worst game mechanic I've ever seen introduced in a 4X game. As a result of this mechanic, Civ 5 redefined what was “good land” as something revolving not around whether the land was fertile or productive, but was determined by whether or not it contained a luxury. Unless I was playing on a pangaea map or got lucky that luxuries didn't cluster, I almost always found that this gimped playing wide via an early REx; and

(b) an AI which essentially couldn't play the game, especially at launch.

The result, as a number of posters noted in the Civ 5 forums was, in my view, a game which used global happiness – rather than the competence of the AI – to impose a narrative on the gamer. A narrative that all too often ran something like: settle 3 or 4 cities, take tradition, build the national college and then go for victory against a rather inept AI.

That's not to say that there weren't some great things in Civ 5 by the way. There were and are. I love for instance the separation of research, gold and culture and the end of the sliders. I also love the concept of 1 UPT (if not it's execution). In those instances in which 1 UPT worked in a game and battle tactics mattered, it was brilliant. However, thanks in no small part to (a) and (b) above, I always felt that I was playing Civ 5 in a straight jacket – having choices imposed on me, instead of being able to tell the story of my Civ.

With that in mind, I'm delighted to read that Civ 6 is retaining a number of features from Civ 5 – but that, for instance, global happiness has been binned. I wonder what mechanic Firaxis will use to limit city spam in it's place? In addition, I've noted in another thread that Firaxis' decision to allow some kind of unit stacking in Civ 6 may potentially make the AI a more formidable opponent in this iteration of the series. Given that other concepts such as active research and the district system are also being added in Civ 6, I confess that I'm rather optimistic (at this very early stage) that Firaxis might be able to present a version of the series which hits the sweet spot this time around: by retaining a number of the features from Civ 5 which made it great and now (in Civ 6) allowing the gamer more flexibility to tell their own story against a competent AI. Perhaps that's their goal with Civ 6? I certainly hope so - although ultimately time will tell, of course.

 

[Louis XXIV]

There doesn't seem to be much information about any fully new mechanics aside from the the new way to research techs.

I would argue the city improvement system is a fully new mechanic as well. I'd also argue the combat system is as much a change as there was between Civ2 and Civ3. Finally, to say it looks like an expansion of Civ5, it can't just be "we don't know yet." Your complaint is there isn't much information, not that we have lots of info pointing to a Civ5 copy.

Also the graphics look VERY similar to an art redesign from Civ 5. An example being of how very different 1, 2, 3, and 4 were from each other.

To me, the graphics remind me far more of Civ4 than Civ5, but to each his own.

An example being the new district system, Civ 5 already had the ability to control the growth direction of their cities. Compared to the simple system in 1, 2, 3,and 4 you can direct the literally shape of your cities control area. It does look neat on the map, but that system is used already on a lot of Civ 5 similar games (clones) already, Warlock - Master of the Arcane for instance and doesn't seem to be much different than an update to Civ 5.

See, I disagree with this. For starters, you mention games other than Civ5. What does that have to do with whether Civ6 is a significant change from Civ5? If Civ5 didn't have the feature and this does, it's a change from Civ5. More over, it feels like it's a significant change. The strategy and ability to build improvements in a city are completely different. It's as simple as balancing whether to build a library or a farm - a decision I've never had to make before. Or whether you build a city up in the mountains that's defendable or a city in open plains that can fit lots of improvements on the map. It'll probably be a terrible strategy to build a city on a one tile island, for example, since there's no place to build buildings after that. Those seem like an overhaul in design.

 

[Genesis_26317]

I would argue the city improvement system is a fully new mechanic as well. I'd also argue the combat system is as much a change as there was between Civ2 and Civ3. Finally, to say it looks like an expansion of Civ5, it can't just be "we don't know yet." Your complaint is there isn't much information, not that we have lots of info pointing to a Civ5 copy.



To me, the graphics remind me far more of Civ4 than Civ5, but to each his own.



See, I disagree with this. For starters, you mention games other than Civ5. What does that have to do with whether Civ6 is a significant change from Civ5? If Civ5 didn't have the feature and this does, it's a change from Civ5. More over, it feels like it's a significant change. The strategy and ability to build improvements in a city are completely different. It's as simple as balancing whether to build a library or a farm - a decision I've never had to make before. Or whether you build a city up in the mountains that's defendable or a city in open plains that can fit lots of improvements on the map. It'll probably be a terrible strategy to build a city on a one tile island, for example, since there's no place to build buildings after that. Those seem like an overhaul in design.

The tile system is used in a lot of Civ type games already. It is new for civilization but games like Warlock use it as well.

I don't dislike the graphics, they just look to be in the same art style you see in tablet games. It isn't a bad thing, the art isn't why I play Civ.

My problem with the tile system is that it is used in much simpler games. Civ 5 got a lot better as they continued work on it, but it is still fairly simple in comparison to how Civ 2 etc were when they were released.

 

[Genesis_26317]

Anyway I don't think a lot of people actually got the point of what I was saying.

The series isn't really growing much, and isn't very simulator like anymore. It is still much more focused on action and steam-lining it for a broader audience. I was just hoping that when this is released it doesn't feel stripped down, and require an additional 2 expansions to get a full game experience.

Overall this game looks very much like they are just making a minor update, and a graphics change from Civ 5.

Meaning in summary:

They are adding the tile system used in other similar games.

They are changing the tech tree.

They are adding something similar to their army system in Civ 3.


-----------------------------
That's about all I was saying.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The tile system is used in a lot of Civ type games already.

Are those Civ type games called "Civilization 5"? If not, it's irrelevant to whether or not this game feels like an expansion to Civ5. The issue there is whether or not this game will play significantly different from Civ5, not whether the game borrows ideas from other games. Believe it or not, borrowing from other games is quite common. Civ5 borrowed its combat system from Panzer General. Soren Johnson was very upfront about the influences other games had on the development of Civ4 (unit promotions, for example, were borrowed from RPG games, iirc).

I don't dislike the graphics, they just look to be in the same art style you see in tablet games. It isn't a bad thing, the art isn't why I play Civ.

Sure. But what does this have to do with the topic you created. Did you just want to start a thread saying "I don't like the look of this game" or did you want to address the specific issue you discussed in your initial post?

Anyway I don't think a lot of people actually got the point of what I was saying.

The series isn't really growing much,

I disagree.

and isn't very simulator like anymore.

I agree with that. But I don't know if Civ should be a simulator. Seems like an interesting discussion. Maybe someone should start a thread on how realistic Civ should be.

Overall this game looks very much like they are just making a minor update, and a graphics change from Civ 5.

Meaning in summary:

They are adding the tile system used in other similar games.

How is that a minor update to Civ5, though? That's my main point. It seems radically different. It seems as different as 1upt was from Civ4.

ETA:

The series isn't really growing much, and isn't very simulator like anymore. It is still much more focused on action and steam-lining it for a broader audience. I was just hoping that when this is released it doesn't feel stripped down, and require an additional 2 expansions to get a full game experience.

Here is a useful quote:

Notably, this is the first Civ game since Civilization 4 in 2004 to launch with a completely new game engine – one Firaxis says it’s designed from the ground up with deep mod support in mind. Despite being rebuilt from the ground up, Beach promises that unlike most of its predecessors, Civilization 6 won’t be stripped down to its bare essentials in its initial release form. We can expect a set of features that’s comparable to what’s currently in Civilization V in its post-expansion state, including trade, religion, archeology, espionage, Great Works, Culture Victory, and more. “We have almost all of that in there,” he says.

 

[MIS]

I'm not sure exactly what changes are big enough to call it a new game, rather than an expansion. I'm not sure I care. They're the same price anyway! We're not losing anything here. And the changes made seem quite major - buildings are much more terrain specific; huge era dependent military bonus; which means the play could be very different. And we've only had one announcement; they may add more going forward.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm not sure exactly what changes are big enough to call it a new game, rather than an expansion. I'm not sure I care. They're the same price anyway! We're not losing anything here. And the changes made seem quite major - buildings are much more terrain specific; huge era dependent military bonus; which means the play could be very different. And we've only had one announcement; they may add more going forward.

Well, it uses a whole new engine. That usually means it's not just an expansion.

 

[dexters]

Graphics were a bit underwhelming but civ6 us an expansion to 5 if you consider civ 4 was an expansion to 3. Both those even numbered games build on their much more ambitious antecedents.

 

[kirbdog]

Well, it uses a whole new engine. That usually means it's not just an expansion.

Yes. I'm impressed so far with the level of work and attention to detail going into this initial release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To me, the leap between Civ4 and Civ5 was the biggest, but it looks like the leap between Civ5 and Civ6 is the second. The differences in previous games (from Civ1 to Civ2, etc.) were much smaller.

 

[dexters]

Leap from 3 to 4 was big (at least visually) 4 was their first game completely in 3D . It probably led some players who became 'fans' during the Civ4 period to over-estimated 4's uniqueness.

As a dyed in the wool Civ3 fanboy during Civ4's heyday, my main critique of 4 was always the things it borrowed from Civ3 but didn't take in the direction I had hoped.

The dumbed down trade table remains my most bitter disappointment with 4, it felt like a huge step back. After the deals I was setting up in Civ3.

But yeah, Civ 4 was basically Civ 3 in 3D , in a completely new engine- true, but the game concepts were all borrowed and refined from 3. Some were regressed. But It was a solid and accessible package.

 

[kaltorak]

To me, the leap between Civ4 and Civ5 was the biggest, but it looks like the leap between Civ5 and Civ6 is the second. The differences in previous games (from Civ1 to Civ2, etc.) were much smaller.

I think civ1 to 2 was a big step.

EDIT: btw, totally disagree with original poster. All 5 announced changes are good, and 3 or 4 are big ones. You can't change the formula completly and do lets say such a different game like endless legends for example. That wouldn't be a civ game, and we want a civ game.

 

[cazaderonus]

How can civ VI "LOOK LIKE" an expansion of CiV. It looks visually nothing like CiV so far.

 

[noto2]

Civ 1 to 2 was an enormous leap... 2 is still the "biggest" civ game, in terms of the number of buildings and units. Anyone remember offshore platforms and superhighways?

3 was a big leap as it added things like culture and stacking, though it was more streamlined.

4 drastically ramped up economic complexity with more complex improvement options and specialists, it also ended ICC.

5 was a huge leap as well with different culture mechanics, 1 UPT, and a new economic system, oh and city states.

I mean, I've bought every Civ game other than 1, obviously I like Firaxis's products for the most part (I bought Xcom and loved it as well) but sometimes I look at the design decisions in their games and just wonder how on earth they thought it was okay.

Some of the civics in Civ4 were just ridiculously underpowered, like serfdom, while others were overpowered, like slavery. I'm not sure how they didn't realize it. Some other choices just make me scratch my head, too, like look at Civ 5's turtle ship. Did they deliberately make it so a Korean player couldn't explore the ocean as a way to nerf a powerful civ? But why nerf it in that way? And the turtle ship is a coastal city killer, did Korea really need that?

My biggest wish from Firaxis is that they CONTINUALLY PATCH THE GAME. I play Dota. Dota's always patching and introducing new things, and they constantly tweak the balance. When it becomes obvious that one thing is overpowered and another is underpowered, it is addressed. I wish we had that for Civ. Poland should have been nerfed, America should have been buffed, etc.

I mean, I know we can mod the game but I'd like Firaxis to at least update the game with regular balance patches during the game's commercial life. So let's get a balance patch once a month after release, rather than having to wait 6-12 months for the first expansion. And let's keep getting balance patches for 6-12 months after the release of the last expansion, please.

 

[MIS]

Civ 1 to 2 was an enormous leap... 2 is still the "biggest" civ game, in terms of the number of buildings and units. Anyone remember offshore platforms and superhighways?

3 was a big leap as it added things like culture and stacking, though it was more streamlined.

4 drastically ramped up economic complexity with more complex improvement options and specialists, it also ended ICC.

5 was a huge leap as well with different culture mechanics, 1 UPT, and a new economic system, oh and city states.

I mean, I've bought every Civ game other than 1, obviously I like Firaxis's products for the most part (I bought Xcom and loved it as well) but sometimes I look at the design decisions in their games and just wonder how on earth they thought it was okay.

Some of the civics in Civ4 were just ridiculously underpowered, like serfdom, while others were overpowered, like slavery. I'm not sure how they didn't realize it. Some other choices just make me scratch my head, too, like look at Civ 5's turtle ship. Did they deliberately make it so a Korean player couldn't explore the ocean as a way to nerf a powerful civ? But why nerf it in that way? And the turtle ship is a coastal city killer, did Korea really need that?

My biggest wish from Firaxis is that they CONTINUALLY PATCH THE GAME. I play Dota. Dota's always patching and introducing new things, and they constantly tweak the balance. When it becomes obvious that one thing is overpowered and another is underpowered, it is addressed. I wish we had that for Civ. Poland should have been nerfed, America should have been buffed, etc.

I mean, I know we can mod the game but I'd like Firaxis to at least update the game with regular balance patches during the game's commercial life. So let's get a balance patch once a month after release, rather than having to wait 6-12 months for the first expansion. And let's keep getting balance patches for 6-12 months after the release of the last expansion, please.

Firaxis patch pretty often. I think imbalance is because the programmers aren't good players - they play average level, not deity. E.g. CivBE I could tell at first glance Brasilia was bad, trade routes were OP (and therefore Polystralia was OP), Artists were OP etc. I will probably pre-order, not because I'm expecting balance day 1, but because Firaxis do patch/ improve their games.

BTW, it's been proven where you start is more important than which Civ you are in whether you win.

 

[darko82]

Not exactly, it looks almost like Civilization Revolution , but it seems to improve and expand Civilization V gameplay/mechanics, which is a good thing Time will tell.

 

[noto2]

BTW, it's been proven where you start is more important than which Civ you are in whether you win.

Yeah but over time you will play many games on many different maps, and patterns develop.

Dota is a great example of a game that is well balanced. I can't play all the heroes well because there are over 100 of them and I just don't have the time to practice all of them, but most of them are competitive up to high level public play. Probably about 80% of them are. There are few heroes in the game that are total trash, and even when a hero is total trash it's usually a temporary state and fixed in the next patch or two.

This increases the replay value.

Civ 5 really detracts from its own replay value. I have no desire to play the Ottomans just to steal ships. I don't want to play Carthage just to have a free harbour. The Songhai bonuses are boring and weak. The Huns hardly have a UA at all, they're all about their battering ram. England hardly has a UA.

Compare that to civs like Korea or Rome. Not only are they powerful, but their bonuses require you to adapt your playstyle to make the most of them. If you're playing Korea, you don't just get a flat boost to science. You have to actively get it by maxing specialists, which requires planning and strategy. As Rome, you don't just get a flat boost to infrastructure. Again, you must actively plan out your build to use it.

Civ 5 is particularly bad for this, it's the first thing I noticed in my first Civ 5 game -that most of the civs didn't seem interesting. In Civ 4 you had tiers as well, but there were a lot more good civ/leader combos.